Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Abstract

Criminalization theory originally supports restriction of criminal law’s border. The question which has been risen is whether the construction of existing theories is about the interests and goals or rights? Examination of German doctrines “Legal Interests” which are goal-oriented and the comparison of it with current theory in the English-American philosophy ­– i.e. harm principle that inherently is behavior-oriented – clearly shows that: although this principle provides that the only or the most pivotal criteria for the criminal intervention of state is to prevent from harming others, German doctrines justify such an intervention on the basis of goals and protectable legal interests; since such theory has been based on violation of “right”. Even though, during the course of evolution, the concept of “Gut” has been gradually replaced by violation of interest in the German theory, understanding the legal interest under the circumstance of contradiction and opposition is truly based on the concept and theory of right. On the other hand, although the harm principle is originally based on the concept of harm, its foundation on the “interest” – albeit in the context of utilitarianism– drew it close to the German doctrines. However, growth of German theory in the context of philosophy of “right” provided a considerable distinction from measurement of interests inspired by utilitarianism in harm principle.

Keywords

- راسخ، محمد ( 1393 )، حق و مصلحت ، مقالاتی در فلسفۀ حقوق، فلسفۀ حق و فلسفۀ ارزش، تهران: نشر نی، 244
- بیکس، برایان ( 1389 )، فرهنگ حقوقی، ترجمه محمد راسخ و همکاران، تهران: نشر نی، . ص. 359
.118-93 :( ترجمه محمد راسخ، نامۀ مفید. ( 21 ،« فلسفه حق » ،( - والدرون، جرمی ( 1379
- گسن، رمون ( 1379 )، ترجمۀ علی حسین نجفی ابرندآبادی ، مجله تحقیقات حقوقی 61- دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، 102
- محمودی جانکی، فیروز ( 1382 )، مبانی، اصول و شیوههای جرم انگاری ، رسالۀ دکتری دانشگاه تهران.
- میل، جان استوارت ( 1385 )، رساله درباره آزادی ، ترجمه جواد شیخ الاسلامی ، تهران : شرکت انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
- نجفی ابرندآبادی ع. هاشم بیگی ح ( 1393 )، دانشنامه جرمشناسی، تهران: گنج دانش.
- “Abortion Case“(1975). BVerfGE 39, 1, 47.
- Ashworth, Andrew, Lucia Zender (2012). “prevention and criminalization:
justifications and limits”. New Crim. LR 542(15).
- Barry B. (1990). political argument, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
- Barry, B. (1977). “The public interests”. in A. Quinton (ed). Political Philosophy. London: OUP.
- Beinding K (1885). Handbuch des Strafrechts. Erster Band (vol 1). Leipzig: Duncker & Humblot.
- Bohlander, Michael (2009). Principles of German criminal law. US and Canada: Hart Publishing.
- Devlin, Gerald (1999). “Devlin was right: law and enforcement of morality”, William and Marry LR, No. 40.
- Dubber, Markus D. (2006). “theories of crime and punishment in German
criminal law“. the American Journal of Comparative Law, 53(3).
- Duff, Antony (2007). answering for crime. Oxford & Portland: Hart Publishing.
- Feinberg, Joel (1984). the moral limits of criminal law: harm to others. vol.1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Finnis, john (1980). Natural law and natural rights. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 110
- Hamish, Stewart (2001-2). "harms, wrongs and set-backs in Feinberg’s
moral limits of criminal law”. Buffalo Criminal LR 47.
- Hassemer, Winfried (2014). the harm principle and the protection of ’legal goods’ (Rechtsgüterschutz): a German perspective, in Simester A.P. et al (eds).
Liberal criminal theory, essays for Andreas von Hirsch. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
- Hönrle, Tatjana (2014b). “rights of others‘ in criminalization theory”. in
Simester A.P. et al (eds). Liberal criminal theory, essays for Andreas von Hirsch. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
- Hörnle, Tatjana (2014). “theories of criminalization“. in: Dubber, Markus D. and Tatjana Hörnle. the Oxford Handbook of Criminal Law. Oxford:University Press.
- Husak, Douglas (2008). overcriminalisation: the limits of criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
- “Incest Case“ (2008), BVerfGE 120.
- Jescheck, Hans-Heinrich & Weigend, Thomas (1996). Lehrbuch des
Strafrechts, Allgemeiner Teil. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.
- Jonathan Schonsheck (1994). On criminalization, an essay in the philosophy
of the criminal law. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
- Marx, M. (1972). zur Definition des Begriffs Rechtsgut: Prolegomena einer materialen Verbrechenslehre. Köln: Hemans.
- Mill, John Stewart (1983). On Liberty. London: Penguin English Library.
- Nuotio, Kimmo (2010). “theories of criminalization and the limits of
criminal law: a legal cultural approach. in R.A. Duff et al (eds). the boundaries of the criminal law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Radbruch, Gustav (1956). Rechtsphilosophie. Stutgart.
- Radbruch, Gustav(1956). Rechtsphilosophie: Stutgart.
- Raz, Joseph (1986). the morality of freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Riley, Jonathan (1988). Liberal Utilitarianism, Social Choice Theory and
J.S. Mill’s Philosophy. Cambridge University Press.
- Roxin, Claus, Strafrecht Allgemeiner Teil (2006). vol 1, München: Verlag.H.Beck.
- Simester A.P. et al (eds). Liberal criminal theory, essays for Andreas von
Hirsch. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
- Simester, A. P. and Andreas von Hirsch (2011). crime, harm, and wrong.Oxford: Hart Publishing.
- Suraof, F.J. (1975). “the public interest recognized”. Journal of Politics,XIX.
- Von Liszt, F. (1888). “der Begriff des Rechtsgutes im Strafrecht und in der
Enzyklopädie der Rechtswissenschaft“. Zeitschrift für die gesamte
Strafrechtswissenschaft 133(8).
- Vormbaum, Thomas & Michael Bohlander (eds) (2014). a modern history
of German criminal law. London: Springer.